Tommy Robinson and the new Totalitarianism

[dutchie]

My feeling is that Britain is lost.

Yep, its f#cked. As is western Europe.
Just a matter of time.
It will be a slow painful death, with a minor part of the population putting up any resistance.
France and Sweden will probably die before Britain.

 

[Lantern]

I read yesterday that six independent journalists have been crowd funded to come over and do some accurate reporting on this case. Two from Canada, one from Australia and three from the USA, backed up by three cameramen. Should make things a bit more accurate.

 

[Lantern]

Tommys statement to the court yesterday

Against the advice of his former lawyers, Tommy Robinson planned to give the following statement during his contempt of court hearing today. The statement was provided to the judge yesterday, which the judge, The Recorder of London, Nicholas Hilliard, QC, cited as playing a significant role in his decision to not hear the case today.

I am the defendant in these contempt proceedings, and the Court has served me with two allegations of contempt against me. This is one more than I faced in the Crown Court at Leeds.

In relation to the first allegation, breaching the order of the court, which requires as I understand it an intention to interfere with the administration of justice, I would like to say this.

Firstly, I would like to assure the court that undermining the court’s authority or interfering with the administration of justice was never my intention. I believed I acted in good faith within the parameters of the section 4 reporting restriction in place. The information I provided was in the public domain, factual and relevant but did not provide any details of the trial proceedings other than what had already been reported previously and was readily available online. I rely on the documents in my bundle as examples of what had previously been reported.

When I arrived at Leeds Crown Court that morning I could not obtain any specific details of the reporting restriction order. I do not believe there is a website which holds such details, so I researched online and reviewed the reporting restriction guidelines provided. They state that the court should include details of reporting restrictions on the court listings both online and in court and also provide a notice on the door of the court. My solicitors have photographic evidence to show that the court did not follow these guidelines that day and had no details listed anywhere of a reporting restriction for that case. This is also in the bundle. The only time the notification about reporting restrictions was available was later that afternoon after the Court had convicted me and sent me to prison. Only then did the Court follow the guidelines and list a reporting restriction against the court listings for both the grooming case and my subsequent case.

After my previous experience with contempt of court in Canterbury I went out of my way to ensure I would not fall foul of the law again. I privately paid for training with one of London’s leading law firms, Kingsley Napley, to cover all details regarding contempt of court. There is documentation in relation to this in my bundle.

On that morning at Leeds Crown Court I had knowledge of the verdicts of the first phase of this grooming trial and many of the specific details discussed in court for this particular trial. I did not talk about these in my livestream on that day. I had understood based on my training that the specifics of the case and the verdicts were off limits for reporting restrictions.

Having been unable to obtain any details from the court on the conditions of the reporting restriction I decided to review the guidelines for reporting restrictions. On the Judiciary’s website there is a practical guide aimed at judges and the media on the statutory and common law principles that should be applied with regards to reporting restrictions. The paper was called ‘Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts April 2015 (Revised May 2016)’. In this paper it stated that Courts have no power under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain (see page 27 of this document).

I followed my training and this guidance to the letter. I did not divulge any of the previous case verdicts, did not detail any specifics mentioned in the trial, did not assume guilt and refrained from entering court property. I even asked the officer outside the court where the court boundaries were and that I was ok to film where I was to which he confirmed.

I also followed that guidance document issued on the Judiciary website informing me that I could only reference information that was already in the public domain. Every single thing I said that day was already in the public domain. I actually read charges and names of the defendants from a BBC article which to this day is still live on their website. I also made sure not to film anyone other than the defendants, I was calm and respectful throughout.

It is my understanding that there is no individual in the last 60 years that has been sentenced to prison for a publication breach of a reporting order. It would appear to me that my punishment is exceptional. I would ask that I am treated in the same manner as every other journalist who has been charged with these allegations. The journalist Rod Liddle was writing for the Spectator magazine in relation to the Stephen Lawrence murder trial, and when he was sentenced for breaching the section 4 order, and risking prejudice to the trial, was given a fine. Journalists at the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror published highly prejudicial material on the trail of Levi Bellfield who abducted and murdered an 11-year-old child. This contempt of court led to the collapse of the entire case and discharge of the jury and robbed one of his victims of the chance for justice. The reporters in this instance were not prosecuted and instead their employers were found guilty of contempt and fined £10,000.

I have reviewed the transcripts from Leeds Crown Court where the Judge was discussing various reporting order breaches. The judge and the CPS discuss the fact that multiple news sources breached the very same order placed on my trial with some breaching both the reporting orders by mentioning the grooming trial as well as my arrest and prison term. Lizzie Dearden the home affairs correspondent at the Independent actually refused to remove the article when provided with the order stating that the effect of social media voids reporting restrictions, so she could not be held in contempt of court. The CPS and the judge agreed that these breaches of the order were a matter for the Attorney General to review.

When I was informed of the blanket order, I offered to delete my video immediately. Despite the multiple breaches of the order by different newspapers that weekend and the flat refusal of Lizzie Dearden to take her article down, not one of those journalists or the editors of those publications, were ever arrested or prosecuted for s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act.

According to the court transcript the newspaper breaches of the reporting order was a matter for the Attorney General. My case was not referred to the Attorney General for review and instead I was hauled into court immediately, refused my own choice of legal representation, prosecuted, and convicted in a matter of minutes in what the Court of Appeal regarded as a flawed trial. I was then imprisoned for over 2.5 months in solitary confinement until I won the appeal. I was held against my categorisation, moved to the highest Muslim population Cat C prison, subjected to mental torture and constant threats and abuse and had all of my rights removed in the interest of prison safety.

It is clear to me that my continued prosecution and heavy-handed tactics from the state is because of ‘who I am’ rather than ‘what I did’.

In relation to the second allegation, the strict liability allegation, I would like to say this.

It is only since my original trial that there has been an additional charge added suggesting that the contents of my livestream were prejudicial to this case. The case completed, the jury concluded, and the verdicts were given. I would like to state clearly that in the transcript from the original trial the judge discussed my video with Mr Wright QC, prosecution counsel. Having reviewed the content of my video Mr Wright stated in court: ‘There is nothing they could have seen that could in any way prejudice them against the defendants’. Judge Marson agreed on the record.

For this reason, (a) I cannot see why I should face two charges when the core of the allegation in front of Judge Marson was the breach of the section 4(2) order, other than because I am regarded as a political activist and the charges are motivated by my political activism, and (b) I do not accept that the material that was livestreamed created either a real or substantial risk of prejudice to the Leeds proceedings. The prosecution counsel and the Judge both agreed on the court transcript that my live stream could not have prejudiced the jury.

Everything I reported that morning was fair and accurate and published in good faith within the constraints of the judiciary’s guidelines for the media.

I will address each point in the allegations drafted by the Advocate to the Court.

The first allegation is that I suggested the defendants were involved in wider criminal activity. This is not correct. I was referring to two reports, one on the radio and one in the Huddersfield Examiner which set out the allegations relating to the 29 individuals. I cannot find the original references but a similar report on the BBC relating to the allegations is in the defence bundle.

The second allegation is that stating that those of the same ethnicity and religion as the defendants were disproportionally likely to commit the crimes for which the defendants were being tried could prejudice the trial.

This statement is factually correct. The Quilliam foundation who are a Muslim run anti extremism think tank have produced a research paper looking at convictions of this type 1 street grooming from 2005 – 2017. This is in the defence bundle. They found that 84% of all convictions were south Asian with the significant majority of those being Pakistani Muslim. All of these victims were white children.

Sajid Javid the Home Secretary himself announced on BBC news this year that in these types of street grooming trials the individuals convicted are from a disproportionately Pakistani background.

Nazir Afzal is the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the north west of England and a lead prosecutor on child sexual abuse and he also publicly stated on Channel 4 News that Asians and Pakistanis in particular are disproportionately involved in this type of street grooming. He also presented these facts in front of Parliament.

I merely stated factual insight into the ethnicity and religious make up of perpetrators of these types of crimes. I repeated publicly available research papers from the Quilliam Organisation, testimony from the former head of Crown Prosecution Service in the Northwest and a statement from the Home Secretary himself all three of which are in fact Pakistani Muslims themselves.

I do not accept that reporting facts on the ethnicity or the make-up of particular offender groups could be categorised as contempt of court given the number of grooming gang trials currently in progress across the United Kingdom and the commentary on those facts which are widely discussed in the media.

The third allegation is that highlighting as significant the sexual references of the abuse that I had elicited from the defendants could prejudice the trial.

I asked each of the defendants what their views were on their verdict they were expecting to hear that day. All 3 of them separately made aggressive vulgar sexual references or sexual threats against both my mother and my wife. I did not ask the defendants to comment on their views of my wife and mother, they did this out of the blue. Repeating what they actually said in the video has no relevance or prejudice on the trial itself.

The fourth allegation is that I made derogatory comments about the ethnic or religious backgrounds of the defendants.

I would like to point out I was not talking about the specific defendants on trial I was referring to reaction I had received by family and friends of previous convicted grooming gangs. By derogatory comments it appears to mean telling the truth that under Islamic law, the “age of consent” coincides with puberty. In Islam there is no set age for marriage. The Islamic Prophet Muhammad, who is said to serve as a role model for every Muslim, is reported by Sunni Hadith sources to have married Aisha when she was six or seven years old, with the marriage consummated when she was nine years old and he was 56 years old. The prosecution may not like to hear the truth but there is no way that sharing the truth and facts about a particular religion on social media can lead to prejudice on a trial.

In relation to the fifth allegation, a number of the comments relied on were made by other people, and my comments related to grooming trials generally across the country rather than the particular case (e.g. the exchange at page 8 of the transcript of the livestream related to Rotherham, and Oxford). I made it clear throughout that the trial concerned allegations.

The nature and number of these ongoing trials, prosecutions and investigations is highly alarming and I believe it is in the public’s interest to hear the details and know of the complexities and connections amongst the previous prosecutions.

The future safety of vulnerable children at risk is my concern here not the perceived prejudice towards the defendants because of their ethnicity or religion. If 29 white Christian priests were on trial on such charges with reporting restrictions, I would feel exactly the same.

When I initially went to report on the Canterbury trial I did so in what I felt was the public interest. The police had DNA evidence on all four of the now convicted child rapists, yet the decision was made to grant these individuals bail. They were still running the same take away shop and coming into contact with young school children. One of the defendants absconded to Afghanistan. With DNA evidence on each of the now convicted child rapists it was my belief that they should have been remanded to prison until trial in order to protect vulnerable children in the surrounding area. Instead the decision was made to release them back into the community on bail.

The same danger was placed on the children in case in question. The now convicted child gang rapists on trial in Leeds that day were also free to walk the streets on bail. There were 18 different witness statements detailing the rape and torture of those children and yet the justice system decided that they did not pose a risk to the public and granted them bail.

Just like the Canterbury case one of these child rapists in the Leeds trial on also absconded before his verdict was reached. I believe he has fled to Pakistan and according to the court transcripts he was last seen leaving his house with a large bag. That is a convicted child rapist free to roam the streets because he was deemed no risk to the public and granted bail.

I have previously been charged with a non-violent offence, and I was remanded straight to prison to await trial. At Leeds Crown Court in May this year, the police whisked me from the streets, I was subjected to a fundamentally flawed trial and then sent straight to prison inside 5 hours. This is all whilst the very same system allows alleged child rapists with multiple prosecution witness statements and DNA evidence implicating them in the crime to continue to walk the streets.

The court has a duty to the victims and the public to protect them and telling them could help stop ongoing child sexual exploitation and maybe prevent future vulnerable children from falling victim to it.

Again I would like to reiterate that undermining the judge, the court, the proceedings, the supremacy of the law or the administration of justice was never my intention, but I truly believe the reporting restrictions on this trial and subsequent connected trials are detrimental to the public and should never have been imposed so the public could hear the details, and use the knowledge of the proceedings to help prevent further cases such as these coming before the courts.

The jurors are given a responsibility. They are aware of the consequences of researching the cases they sit on. It should be upon them and we should trust them to do the task with honesty and integrity; it should not be for the public to be kept purposely in the dark just in case they do not.

Tommy Robinson’s witness st… by on Scribd


Posted in Blog - Tagged Tommy Robinson, United Kingdom
Post navigation
← Who is Tommy Robinson?
I overheard how reporters talk about Tommy Robinson →
andrew@andrewlawton.ca
Facebook

• Twitter

• Instagram

 

[dutchie]

Dear Tommy
We don't give a #### about the girls.
We just don't want to upset those "who cannot be named".
So stop interfering.
Signed
Judge

 

[Lantern]

The Judge referred the case up to the Attorney-General.
Pretty sure that that means he will be in front of a Jury.
I reckon this has turned and will soon bite the judiciary in the A**.

 

[dutchie]

Tommy has the evidence to show how corrupt and bias the BBC is.

Video to be shown on Saturday 23rd February 2019

 

[Lantern]

He is so over the moon about this. Really looking forward to it.

 

[wayneL]

Possibly a watershed moment. Looking forward to this.

 

[IFocus]

Wiki

Criminal convictions
Robinson was jailed for assault in 2005, has convictions for drugs offences and public order offences, was jailed in 2012 for illegally entering the United States using a false passport[121] and jailed again in 2014 for a £160,000 mortgage fraud.[122]

His 2005 sentence was for assaulting an off-duty police officer[123] who had come to the rescue of his girlfriend, now wife, during a drunken confrontation. Robinson said "I've kicked him in the head" and "I felt like I shouldn't of gone to jail for what I did".[17]

He was convicted in 2011 of leading a brawl involving 100 football fans.[27]

False passport
In October 2012, Robinson was arrested and held on the charge of having entered the United States illegally. Robinson pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to using someone else's passport to travel to the United States in September 2012, and was sentenced in January 2013 to 10 months' imprisonment.[124][125]

Robinson had used a passport in the name of Andrew McMaster to board a Virgin Atlantic flight from Heathrow to New York.[121] He had been banned from entering the US due to a drugs offence. When he arrived at New York’s JFK Airport, customs officials who took his fingerprints realised he was not Mr McMaster. He was asked to attend a second interview but left the airport, entering the US illegally. He stayed one night and returned to the UK the following day using his own legitimate passport - which bears the name Paul Harris.[126]

Judge Alistair McCreath told him: "What you did went absolutely to the heart of the immigration controls that the United States are entitled to have. It's not in any sense trivial."[121]

He was released on electronic tag on 22 February 2013.[127]

Fraud
In November 2012, Robinson was charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit fraud by misrepresentation in relation to a mortgage application, along with five other defendants.[128] He pleaded guilty to two charges and in January 2014 was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.[129][125]

Robinson's fraud amounted to £160,000 over a period of six months. Judge Andrew Bright QC described him as the "instigator, if not the architect" of a series of frauds totalling £640,000. "This was an operation which was fraudulent from the outset and involved a significant amount of forward planning." He described Robinson as a "fixer" who had introduced others to fraudulent mortgage broker Deborah Rothschild. Rothschild had assisted some defendants by providing fake pay slips and income details.[122]

Robinson was attacked by several fellow prisoners in HM Prison Woodhill.[130][131] Following news of the attack, Maajid Nawaz wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling, asking for Robinson's situation to be urgently addressed.[131][132] Shortly after this incident, Robinson was moved to HM Prison Winchester. Robinson told Jamie Bartlett, a director of the think tank Demos: "In Woodhill, I experienced Islam the gang. [...] In Winchester, I have experienced Islam the religion." Robinson made friends with several Muslim prisoners, referring to them as "great lads [...] I cannot speak highly enough of the Muslim inmates I'm now living with".[133] In June 2014 Robinson was released on licence. The terms of his early release included having no contact with the EDL until the end of his original sentence in June 2015.[133] He was due to talk to the Oxford Union in October 2014, but was recalled to prison before the event for breaching the terms of his licence.[134] He was ultimately released on 14 November 2014.

 

[wayneL]

Ho hum. We all know that matey.

Whats worse? That, or the pedophile rape gangs/culture he's trying to fight against?

Tommy goes into bat for the poor little girls, while you're oh so upstanding pillars of society turned a blind eye for decades soas "not to offend".

Disgusting

 

[dutchie]

Ho hum. We all know that matey.

Whats worse? That, or the pedophile rape gangs/culture he's trying to fight against?

Tommy goes into bat for the poor little girls, while you're oh so upstanding pillars of society turned a blind eye for decades soas "not to offend".

Disgusting

We cannot afford to offend the pedophiles, but we can certainly offend the man pointing them out.

Hypocrites.

 

[Lantern]

Well said WayneL.
Tommy is giving the real English men and women something to believe in after no one heard them for decades.
I seriously hope he stands for election in my lifetime.

Seriously though. I've said it before and I'll say it again, and I'll keep on saying it until my days on this planet are over. The UK needs a "Hillsborough" type inquiry into all this. As far reaching as is required so that ALL the people involved in sweeping the details under the carpet, hiding the truth and just hoping it will go away, are made to answer for their crimes. Many heads need to roll.
I seriously hope it happens in my lifetime. But I won't hold my breath.
I do feel though the tide is slowly changing, and there are a small handful of brave people starting to speak a little louder than they were doing.
The authorities are not running scared yet, and won't for a while. All we can do is live in hope or join the ones speaking out.
The Hillsborough enquiry took 27 years, let's not let these kids wait that long for justice.

 

[IFocus]

If there is a law an order issue then it needs addressing politicising / idolising a wife bashing criminal as Robyn Hood is disgusting , nave and really stupid IMHO.

 

[dutchie]

If there is a law an order issue then it needs addressing politicising / idolising a wife bashing criminal as Robyn Hood is disgusting , nave and really stupid IMHO.

Yes, lets forget about all the little girls that have been or will be raped and go after the messenger.

 

[Lantern]

If there is a law an order issue then it needs addressing politicising / idolising a wife bashing criminal as Robyn Hood is disgusting , nave and really stupid IMHO.

If I was a betting man I would guess you are in the South Yorkshire Police farce.

 

[Darc Knight]

Wiki

Criminal convictions
Robinson was jailed for assault in 2005, has convictions for drugs offences and public order offences, was jailed in 2012 for illegally entering the United States using a false passport[121] and jailed again in 2014 for a £160,000 mortgage fraud.[122]

His 2005 sentence was for assaulting an off-duty police officer[123] who had come to the rescue of his girlfriend, now wife, during a drunken confrontation. Robinson said "I've kicked him in the head" and "I felt like I shouldn't of gone to jail for what I did".[17]

He was convicted in 2011 of leading a brawl involving 100 football fans.[27]

False passport
In October 2012, Robinson was arrested and held on the charge of having entered the United States illegally. Robinson pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to using someone else's passport to travel to the United States in September 2012, and was sentenced in January 2013 to 10 months' imprisonment.[124][125]

Robinson had used a passport in the name of Andrew McMaster to board a Virgin Atlantic flight from Heathrow to New York.[121] He had been banned from entering the US due to a drugs offence. When he arrived at New York’s JFK Airport, customs officials who took his fingerprints realised he was not Mr McMaster. He was asked to attend a second interview but left the airport, entering the US illegally. He stayed one night and returned to the UK the following day using his own legitimate passport - which bears the name Paul Harris.[126]

Judge Alistair McCreath told him: "What you did went absolutely to the heart of the immigration controls that the United States are entitled to have. It's not in any sense trivial."[121]

He was released on electronic tag on 22 February 2013.[127]

Fraud
In November 2012, Robinson was charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit fraud by misrepresentation in relation to a mortgage application, along with five other defendants.[128] He pleaded guilty to two charges and in January 2014 was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.[129][125]

Robinson's fraud amounted to £160,000 over a period of six months. Judge Andrew Bright QC described him as the "instigator, if not the architect" of a series of frauds totalling £640,000. "This was an operation which was fraudulent from the outset and involved a significant amount of forward planning." He described Robinson as a "fixer" who had introduced others to fraudulent mortgage broker Deborah Rothschild. Rothschild had assisted some defendants by providing fake pay slips and income details.[122]

Robinson was attacked by several fellow prisoners in HM Prison Woodhill.[130][131] Following news of the attack, Maajid Nawaz wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling, asking for Robinson's situation to be urgently addressed.[131][132] Shortly after this incident, Robinson was moved to HM Prison Winchester. Robinson told Jamie Bartlett, a director of the think tank Demos: "In Woodhill, I experienced Islam the gang. [...] In Winchester, I have experienced Islam the religion." Robinson made friends with several Muslim prisoners, referring to them as "great lads [...] I cannot speak highly enough of the Muslim inmates I'm now living with".[133] In June 2014 Robinson was released on licence. The terms of his early release included having no contact with the EDL until the end of his original sentence in June 2015.[133] He was due to talk to the Oxford Union in October 2014, but was recalled to prison before the event for breaching the terms of his licence.[134] He was ultimately released on 14 November 2014.

I just found that on Wiki myself, was about to post it until I saw you already had. What is going on in this thread.

"Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982),[12] known as Tommy Robinson, and having previously used thepseudonyms Andrew McMaster, Paul Harrisand Wayne King,["
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

 

[Knobby22]

Wayne King (chortle)

 

[wayneL]

There is no question Tommy is working class, a soccer fan, a bovver boy and a chancer.

But the far left, intersectional, postmodern cultural Marxists miss what is going on.

For them it is all about the smear, especially if male, white, and in England where the toxic class system still exists, working class. In their circles they get some prestige, some bizarre brownie points if they can smear someone they percieve as a non-Komrade.

For people like Tommy, it's about the issues, the Islamisation of their country, and the pedaphile, largely Muslim, pedophile rape gangs, targetting children.

Little girls, Komrades.

If you do your research properly, Komrades, instead of believing the mendacious hit pieces from the Guardian, you will realise you've been played. (willingly by my observation)

We all know the dirt file on Tommy, every petty leftist drags it all up, ad nauseum, in every thread.

Lets instead, deal with the issues he is addressing, and why the establishment is trying to sweep it under the carpet.

That's what's important.

 

[Darc Knight]

There is no question Tommy is working class, a soccer fan, a bovver boy and a chancer.

But the far left, intersectional, postmodern cultural Marxists miss what is going on.

For them it is all about the smear, especially if male, white, and in England where the toxic class system still exists, working class. In their circles they get some prestige, some bizarre brownie points if they can smear someone they percieve as a non-Komrade.

For people like Tommy, it's about the issues, the Islamisation of their country, and the pedaphile, largely Muslim, pedophile rape gangs, targetting children.

Little girls, Komrades.

If you do your research properly, Komrades, instead of believing the mendacious hit pieces from the Guardian, you will realise you've been played. (willingly by my observation)

We all know the dirt file on Tommy, every petty leftist drags it all up, ad nauseum, in every thread.

Lets instead, deal with the issues he is addressing, and why the establishment is trying to sweep it under the carpet.

That's what's important.

Morning Komrade. I like you Wayne, you bring mirth and merriment to my day.
Do you really think a person with a rap sheet which includes "convictions for violence, financial and immigration frauds, drug possession, public order offences, and contempt of court" is really a person who should be an advisor to Politicians? Sounds like his character hasn't changed.

 

[dutchie]

Lets instead, deal with the issues he is addressing, and why the establishment is trying to sweep it under the carpet.

That's what's important.

Sorry Wayne but that's not how it works.

You cannot debate/reason with a leftist.

You cannot debate/reason with a communist or socialist.

You cannot debate/reason with antifa (and that they are acting as nazi's and fascists ), other than with violence.

You cannot debate/reason with a radical feminist (hi Clem).